Current 9/11 Legal Challenges

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Current 9/11 Legal Challenges

Postby CB_Brooklyn » Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:52 pm

Drs Wood and Reynolds have filed legal challenges, which provide an excellent opportunity for a new investigation. They stand behind their work and have submitted through proper legal channels.

Anyone else having scientific proof should follow through. Anyone having a smoking gun should submit to proper governmental agencies as Drs Wood/Reynolds already have.

However, anyone not having smoking gun proof should NOT submit it the same way Drs Wood/Reynolds have. In the USA, anyone knowingly submitting false information to a governmental agency can be prosecuted for defrauding the government and treason!

Obviously, Drs Wood and Reynolds stand by their research 100%!


Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Dept of Labor, is suing private contractors alleging they defrauded the government by supplying bogus analyses for the official 9/11 NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into a steel/concrete building.

Dr Reynolds is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart, and is demanding a Trial By Jury.

The US District Court, Southern New York, recently unsealed the case and Mr Leaphart is now notifying the Defendants.

See Dr Reynolds site for info and the Court Document PDF:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... deral_case


Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, recently filed an appeal with the government for their refusal to retract their report on the World Trade Center destruction. Dr Wood (and Dr Reynolds) have compiled much evidence demonstrating that the WTC was destroyed with directed energy weapons. She has been in contact with government officials and is getting results. See Dr Wood's site for evidence of directed energy weapons and PDFs of official Request for Corrections filed with the government:
http://drjudywood.com


Dr Wood is the only 9/11 Research Scientist to get NIST to confirm the statement in their own report of not having analyzed the "collapses" of the towers. This confirmation comes in NIST's response to Dr Wood's Request for Correction, both of which are archived here:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

The relevant quote from the Chief, Management and Organization Division at NIST to Dr Wood is as follows:

"As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves."



Dr Wood is also represented by Jerry Leaphart.

In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:

"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."

MP3 Clip: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_Jerr ... FC_Adm.mp3
Full Show: http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_Jerr ... rtRFCs.mp3
CB_Brooklyn
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stevenwarran » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:27 pm

Yo CB! I'm down with my Brooklyn buddy! Feel the chill wind in rigorous land? They don't make an emotion for the high-tone sniff our kind gets around here. But trust in the Plain English plan. Eventually, they'll be forced to, sort a, shift over, ever so slightly, and co-opt THE WHOLE IDEA! It's so manly when that happens!

We can then keep our mouths shut, like the MIT WWII interrogators, at least until our late 80's--it'll be our noble little secret!
stevenwarran
 

Postby Jeff » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:22 am

CB, what stevenwarran is alluding to is this:

"Advocating or advancing theories contending that no planes whatsoever struck the WTC is discouraged, and such threads will be subject to locking, moving to the Fire Pit, or deletion."
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stevenwarran » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:12 pm

Jeff, is it really too hard for you to address CB's point? That acceptance of the lawsuit indicates it has merit? Likewise, acceptance of Wood's Request for Correction would also indicate her arguments merit merit?

I mean, it's like you people are performing some arcane Japanese tea ceremony around here. If it's me, if I lack some sensitivity or maturity gene, let me know, please! I offered to go away, but every time I try to break away, they pull me back in. You're like some big crime family around here.
stevenwarran
 

Postby Jeff » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:48 am

stevenwarran wrote:I mean, it's like you people are performing some arcane Japanese tea ceremony around here.


Okay, that was funny. But no, I'm not budging on Woods and Reynolds.

Call me a gatekeeper if you like, but it's my gate, and I'm keeping it.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stevenwarran » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:59 pm

I made daddy laugh! I made daddy laugh!


All it took was a cudgel.


And of course, I preferred "some big crime family."
stevenwarran
 

Postby Andrew Johnson » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:44 pm

For audios pertaining to Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart's activism and research, check this link:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/9 ... order=desc
The truth will set you free - but it will shock, shake and annoy you first.
Andrew Johnson
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stevenwarran » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:36 am

I see! said the blind man to his deaf son.
stevenwarran
 

Postby Jeff » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:56 am

Enough of this. I've stated the rules plainly enough. I'm locking this thread, and any further advocacy of Wood, no-planes-at-the-WTC or "TV fakery" will be deleted on sight and the posters subject to banning.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest